Is this a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment?

Regarding the awesome couple who defended their property from what certainly looked to be a real threat from a bunch of thugs who were part of large group of protestors in St. Louis. They have now had a rifle confiscated from them even though they own them perfectly legally and there's been no charges brought against them! That's a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment surely. Some GOP lawmakers have contacted General Attorney William Barr expressing concern: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/07...ouples-gun-rights-after-firearm-confiscation/

 

@Richard The Last - I assume that your 'like' indicates that it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment?

 

@Richard The Last, it looks like you don't like posting very much. I await yet another 'like!'

 

While it's not a direct violation of the Second it is a miscarriage of justice to mollify the BLM mobsters.

 

It appears a move to appease the angry. We wouldn't want them to take over a police station or a neighborhood, would we?

 

@TOG 6, any thoughts?

 

Why is it not a direct violation of the Second? Indeed, the confiscation of arms seems to be the most BLATANT direct violation of the Second.

 

Tens of thousands of guns are seized by law enforcement and it's not a violation of the Second.

The Second is a right to keep and bear arms not a right to threaten others with those guns.

 

Thousands of LEGAL guns?

You don't think that the McCloskey's were using justifiable threat to protect themselves and their property inside a gated community which a pile of human waste thugs and protesters had just broken into?

 

They may have been at one time.

No one should ever threaten someone with a gun, if that level of force is justified, you shoot to kill. As for the gate that's a crime, but the McCloskey's where not harmed by such, therefore they lacked the justification to display their guns.

Now if those same thugs where breaking into the McCloskey's home or where putting the McCloskey's lives in danger, then lethal force would have been justified as they where using their guns to protect themselves, and if the thugs where very cooperative, they just might make it to jail versus the morgue.

What they did was very stupid, first of all they tipped their hand and gave up their tactical advantage in the process, second they where dealing with a mob and are quite lucky someone in that mob didn't shoot them claiming they where in fear for their lives.

If they had any training what so ever they would have realized by doing what they did, they lowered themselves to the level of the mob and they have a lot more to lose than the mob does.

It would have been much better to turn on as much outside lighting as they had and totally blacked out the home, take up defensive positions and wait it out, yes the mob was being outrageous, but to see a home go totally dark sends a clear message, the people inside are preparing for an attack, so move on to a softer target and live for another day.

 

The McCloskey's AR was perfectly legal, so I can't see why you are including it in the "tens of thousands of guns" which are seized by law enforcement.

You seem to be unaware of the direct threats which were made at the McCloskey's, such as someone saying "you're next."

Isn't the alternative that they could have threatened them with the guns if they came inside? Once those thugs saw a guy in his own home with an AR, I don't think those little p*ssies would've hung around too long.

You clearly don't think that they had any training, so then why are you holding them to such a high standard, as if they WERE trained?

Are you under the impression that this occurred during the darkness of night and not the middle of the day?

 

Where did I say that.

Direct threats do justify the use of lethal force.

They where not in their home they where outside.

Because when they go to trial they will wish they had received some training.

Irrelevant, what they did was stupid and is not going to cost them dearly, plus they will probably never see their guns ever again, not to mention the fact while they are awaiting a bond hearing who's watching their home?[/quote]

 

You seemed to be using that statistic as evidence that the confiscation in this case is nothing out of the ordinary.

And so were you unaware of the direct threats which were made at the McCloskey's?

Yeah, I said "IF they came inside" because you said "IF those same thugs where breaking into the McCloskey's home or where putting the McCloskey's lives in danger then lethal force would have been justified..." Again, isn't the alternative that they could have merely threatened them with the guns if they came inside? Once those thugs saw a guy in his own home with an AR, I don't think those little p*ssies would've hung around too long. I'm saying that deadly force would've been certainly justified, but not the only option.

And why is that?

It IS going to cost them dearly, or it IS NOT going to cost them dearly?

Why? The leftists in power?

WTF? Why are you assuming that they're not living in their home at the moment?

 

What they did is called 'brandishing.' Its a crime when not in response to a 'reasonable threat.' I suspect it'll be up to a jury to decide whether the mob represented a 'reasonable threat' or not. I also suspect a jury will decide that it was.

 

In a rotten liberal hell hole?

 

No, it is not. That's kind of a stupid claim.
It is not, for multiple reasons.

However, it was a violation of the homeowner's rights, and the district attorney responsible for this should probably be dismissed from her position, for other ways she has misused her position in the recent past also.

 

What would be the reasoning behind taking someone's gun and then not charging them with a crime? If no crime was committed then why were their guns confiscated? Am I missing something?

 

Prolly. The guys is a lawyer, after all.

 

You actually SAID something! And I don't THINK that you're missing something, but perhaps we both ARE.

 

Name just ONE. You realise that they haven't even been charged with anything? At least they hadn't at the time of the confiscation.

What, the raid?

 

Well they've not been charged with a crime.

 

So... my take on the situation is this: If no crime was committed and a person's guns were taken by law enforcement then it would be a direct violation of the Second Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms" seems to have been infringed in this instance.

 

Oh wow. If true, then yes, this is a violation of the constitution.

 

I think they had every right to fear for their lives, this was private property, the people broke down their gate and entered their property

had these people been marching down a public sidewalk, it would be different, but this was a gated community they broke in too

 

that is the Trump policy, take the guns first, due process later